[34] Ms. Brake did not respond to that letter. She began this
proceeding soon afterwards, in November 2012.

[35] The trial judge found that despite Ms. Brake having made
reasonable best efforts to find comparable full-time work after
her employment with PJ-M2R was terminated, she was unsuccessful in that regard. She had been able to find work only in
positions that were “substantially inferior to the managerial
position” that she had held with the appellant. Details of the
attempts she made to find work and the treatment of the income
that she received during the notice period are set out below, in
the analysis on issue #5.

The Trial Decision

[36] The trial judge began by making his findings of fact,
summarized above. He gave detailed reasons for his findings
and included quotations from documents made at the relevant
times.

[37] He then set out the legal principles that govern employment contracts, constructive dismissal and the determination of
a reasonable notice period.

[38] The trial judge found [at para. 16] that, while “probably
not a perfect employee in every respect”, Ms. Brake “was
an overall competent manager with a long track record of successful contribution at the standard expected of her position.

The performance appraisals filed over a considerable timespancan lead to no other conclusion.”[39] He said [at para. 17] that there was some evidence thatMs. Brake had “run into some difficulty” in late 2011 and into

2012. He noted that this period could not be looked at in isola-tion, given Ms. Brake’s lengthy history of effective contributionto the appellant. The trial judge concluded [at para. 17] that thedifficulties did not amount to anything close to gross or seriousincompetence and stressed that, by the end of the GAP program,Ms. Brake had met the appellant’s “new and improved” stand-ards: “She was trending upward at an extraordinary degreewhen the decision to demote her was put on the table.”[40] He further found [at para. 18] that, taken at their highestand in aggregate, the complaints about Ms. Brake’s perfor-mance, as set out by the appellant, did not amount to cause fordismissal: “There was far more right about her performancethan wrong with it.”[41] The trial judge also found that Ms. Brake had not beengiven a clear and reasonable opportunity to correct the issuesthat the appellant had with her employment performance. Henoted that she had been transferred to a failing restaurant and